High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-23Disposed of with directions

Mohammed Akbar v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 28243 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: the petitioner may submit a representation narrating the grievance to the Additional 6th Respondent within two weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this judgment; the Additional 6th Respondent will consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three weeks from receipt of the representation; the operation of Ext. P10 is stayed until the representation is considered; all contentions are left open for consideration by the Additional 6th Respondent.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohammed Akbar V

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Superintending Engineer, PWD (Roads), North Circle, Kozhikode District
The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Sub-Division Alathur, Palakkad District
The Assistant Engineer, PWD Road Section, Alathur, Palakkad District
The Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Palakkad District
Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Thiruvananthapuram (Additional 6th Respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jacob Sebastian
• Winston K.V
• Anu Jacob
• Keerthy Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Vidya KuriaKose, Govt. Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the termination of a works contract and seeking payment of dues. The petitioner, Mohammed Akbar, had been awarded a road works contract (Ext. P1) but submits that progress was impeded by hindrances at the site, preventing timely completion. He submitted Ext. P2 on 28.10.2019 seeking removal of hindrances; Ext. P3 records the fourth respondent directing the Panchayath to act. Ext. P7, a revised estimate prepared by the fourth respondent, was submitted for approval before the third respondent but has not been sanctioned. Ultimately, Ext. P10, issued by the second respondent on 08.08.2023, terminates the contract. The petitioner prays for quashing Ext. P10 by a writ of certiorari and for a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to release pending bills and all due amounts including EMD, security deposit, and retention money. He also seeks exemption from English translations of Exhibits P2–P6 and P8–P9. The Government Pleader counters that there is nothing to interfere with Ext. P10 and notes that the work remains unfinished after four years. The court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Additional 6th Respondent within two weeks, which the respondent must consider with a hearing and decide expeditiously within three weeks; the operation of Ext. P10 is stayed pending this representation, and all contentions are left open for further challenge.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that hindrances at the work site impeded completion of the contracted road project. He points to Ext. P2 (representation seeking removal of hindrances) and Ext. P3 (direction to Panchayath). Although Ext. P7 (revised estimate) was prepared, it has not been sanctioned, and Ext. P10 terminates the contract. Therefore, he seeks quashing Ext. P10 and a Mandamus directing payment of pending bills, EMD, security deposit, and retention money. He also seeks waiver of English translations for Exhibits P2–P6, P8–P9. He seeks stay of Ext. P10 pending consideration. He argues that reprisal or delays in decision-making have caused prejudice and that timely intervention is necessary to protect his rights and ensure due payments.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader opposes interference, stating there is nothing to interfere with Ext. P10 and that the work remains incomplete even after four years. The respondents contend that the contract termination was proper and that the petition lacks merit; they urge that any representation be addressed by the Additional 6th Respondent after due process, and that the petition should not disrupt ongoing administrative actions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mohammed Akbar v State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 28243 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** MOHAMMED AKBAR.V AGED 45 YEARS S/O. ABDUL HAJI, VEMMULLY HOUSE, EDAYATTUR P.O, MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679326 BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN WINSTON K.V ANU JACOB KEERTHY RAJ ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,| ||PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||SECRETARIAT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,| ||PIN - 695001| |2|THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER| ||PWD (ROADS), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,| ||NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,| ||PIN - 673647| |3|THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER| ||PWD (ROADS), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE| ||ENGINEER, SUB-DIVISION ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,| ||PIN - 678541| |4|THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER| ||PWD ROAD SECTION, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,| ||ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,| ||PIN - 678541| |5|THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER| ||PWD ROADS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,| ||CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,| WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 2 PIN – 678001 6 ADDL.R6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION) BY ADV. SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------W.P.(C) No.28243 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: _“(i) Calls for the record leading to Ext.P10 and quash it issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;_ _(ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 5 to release the pending bills in respect of the work submitted by the petitioner and all amounts due to him including EMD, security deposit and Retention money;_ _(iii) To dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits-P2 to P6, P8 & P9 which is in vernacular language; and_ _(iv) Issue such other writ, order or_ WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 4 _direction, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”[SIC]_ 2. Petitioner was awarded the work mentioned in Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, there were various hindrances on the work site. Without removing the same, it is submitted that the petitioner could not execute the work. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 before the 4[th] respondent seeking removal of the hindrances on the work site. The 4[th] respondent issued Ext.P3 calling upon the Panchayath to do the needful. It is also submitted that the 4[th] respondent prepared Ext.P7 revised estimate and submitted the same for approval before the 3[rd] respondent. Till now, Ext.P7 is not sanctioned. At this stage, the contract itself is terminated as per Ext.P10. Aggrieved by the same, WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 5 this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Government Pleader seriously opposed the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P10. It is also submitted that, even after four years, the work is not completed. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. Petitioner has raised various contentions in this writ petition. These are matters to be looked into by the authority concerned. The petitioner can submit a representation against Ext.P10 before the additional 6[th] respondent. If such a representation is filed, there can be a direction to consider the WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 6 same and till consideration of the same, the operation of Ext.P10 can be stayed. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. The petitioner is free to submit a representation narrating the grievance raised in this writ petition before the additional 6[th] respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ii. Once such a representation is received, the additional 6[th] respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 7 iii. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free to agitate the same before the additional 6[th] respondent. iv. Petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the additional 6[th] respondent for compliance. v. The operation of Ext.P10 is stayed till the representation is considered on condition that the petitioner submits the representation as directed above. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28243/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE WORK DATED 19.09.2019. EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, PUTHUCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT OF THE ABOVE WORK DATED 12.07.2021. EXHIBIT-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION WP(C) NO.28243 OF 2023 9 DATED 15.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE